Hodo

This was my airial survey craft for a good while but I have since retired it in .90. Working on building a new one for this version. This has been pressed back into survice as my airial survey craft and general air defense craft. And this is currently entering service here at HARM industries.

I have been to Moho out of that list, but I have been to Duna, Ike, and Eve before. I plan on going back to Duna, Ike and Eve, and even going out to Eeloo and Jool eventually.

You must be using DRE with FAR, and you are mistaken about the B9 Precoolers. They are not completely functional. They work some but not that much. Take a look at this craft here. It is using 4 RAPIERs and has no overheat problems. And I am running FAR and DRE. On smaller craft with an engine that size you may want to cut your throttle to about 90-95%, so you dont over cook it.

Climb to about 12-16km and bring your AoA down to about 10-15deg and accelerate as well as you can. Once you get up to about 25km you should be going around Mach 4+ if you can push to mach 4.5 you are doing great. Then kick your rocket in at that point and turn off your turbojets, then pitch up to 20-25deg. You should reach orbit pretty easy after that.

Here is a simple way at looking at CoM and CoL. Your Center of Mass is your center of gravity of the craft, if it were to sit on a head of pin centered on this it would sit perfectly balanced not tipping in any direction. Now the Center of Lift is your lever point that will move that. If you have the CoL to far forward of the CoM, the craft will want to flip nose up when it flies. If it is to far back it will be to nose heavy and it would want to let the nose fall. It would be like holding a broom handle at the very back. When an aircraft flies it is balanced on its CoL, this is what is is holding it in the air. It is a very important point on any aircraft, if this is shifted tofar one direction or the other it will affect the handling of the craft. Some real aircraft have their CoL vs CoM in different locations in respect to each other, and depending on what they are designed to do. Like for example the old IJN Mitsubishi A6M Zero, that plane had its CoL almost on top of the CoM. It was designed to be as nimble as possible but still stable in easy to handle. But other aircraft like the Boeing 777, has its CoL a fair ways away from the CoM, but this craft has the handling charecteristics of a schoolbus, and is quite easy to maintain in level flight for long distances. But some newer 5th Generation fighters like the F-22A Raptor have their CoL slightly ahead of the CoM. But they have computers compinsate for the unstable flight characteristics of them.

I have build a few SSTOs of that size or larger before there were MK3 parts using the B9 parts which are the same size as the B9. I mean this was from last year..... I am sure I can repeat the design with the new parts easy.

If you are running FAR and AJE you wouldnt cruise at 100%. Most of the time I cruise at 40-50% throttle in FAR when I am not trying to go into space. Sometimes I don't even have that much throttle, on some of my combat fighter designs I cruise at 25% throttle because that will keep them at mach 1.5 pretty easily.

He never posted a pic of his craft so no clue what you are talking about here.

I have to say, DONT DO THIS. This is a bad idea for any design. The reason for this is it actually changes the way the craft flies when level. If you have 5deg of upward AoA on the wings then the craft will need to be pointed 5deg down to maintain level flight at some speeds. It is best to start simple and keep them inline with the aircraft till you get a bit more advanced in your knowledge. After you are comfirtable with the basics then go to messing around with AoA of the wing placement.

Can't say I have. Is it an old rocket design from .25? Because I have found a lot of Errors thrown on some of my old designs when I transfered them over to .90.

So you are running stock aerodynamics or FAR or NEAR? If you are an aero-nut as you said then FAR would be your best choice as it would be the closest you are going to get in KSP to the real aerodynamic forces on an aircraft. Eitherway push a picture of your craft in the SPH with the CoM and the CoL indicators on and if possible get multiple angles, top, side, and rear with the CoT on. The thing with a decent SSTO spaceplane is you have to be able to get high enough to build speed where you are not in the thickest part of the atmosphere. Like this old ugly stock aircraft that I made a while ago for tests in atmosphere. Now mind you that one was never an SSTO but it didnt take much to get it there. And that is what the SSTO combat aircraft version turned into. Still flies to orbit and does the job quite well. The best advice is to start small find a design that works then build up from there.

Are you running in FAR? And are you using the IR docking rings that rotate or something else? I built a swing wing design earlier in the year for my old install that worked pretty well but ultimately gave up on the design due to lack of strength at higher G loads.

I was having issues with craft that had wings from previous versions of Pwings, when I removed those wings and redid them under the new system the NULLREF errors went away. Check your output.log

Yes it is possible in real life the SU-27 does it at airshows all the time. In FAR not sure. But I can say on the complexity of FAR, it isn't that complex, I have used it for a year without ever looking at the graphs, I just built according to the old pilot addage, "if it looks right it will fly right."

If Squad makes FAR useless and substitutes some other half-gainer-no-brainer chop job of an atmosphere that isn't FAR I will never upgrade my KSP and likely quit playing it.

So I decided to build something after taking a short break from The Repopulation testing.... And I came up with this SP-150. It is cheap affective and well it doesn't look to bad. Not to mention it is easy to fly in FAR. And this was made and is working in flight testing for the HARM division.

I just set mine to an action group for the weapons manager part.

Here's the thing about that. The CoL actually shifts rearwards as the craft breaks the transonic speed line.

So does this mean that we will get procedural B9 fuel tanks and other parts? Oh that would be AWESOME!

I looked at the picture of your design. The CoL is way far back from the CoM. This will make the craft really nose heavy expecially at transonic speeds. And if you clip to wings into each other I think FAR will only read one set of them, it may play crazy havoc with it also. I have never tried to clip two wings into eachother. As for having parts of a wing clipped into the other you can do that and FAR will still read it correctly, it will read the leading edge of the wing and the total wing surface. Your vertical stabilizer looks pretty decent for that sized of a craft, but the amount of lift behind your CoM is going to be your biggest problem.

You may need to deploy a drogue chute to slowdown, like the real pod did in real life.

LOL..... fail. The reason behind this is because Ferram got sick AND tired of telling each and every person who blew past that warning on launch with FAR and complaining here in this thread about how 64bit version was doing this or doing that. So he just disabled 64bit all together. Which was the best choice he had. Sorry but 64bit is a hot mess right now Squad knows it and so does everyone else in the community this is why no one really uses it any more.

I have no clue what is kicking all of my nullref errors, I uninstalled then reinstalled KSP and I am getting the exact same errors. The outputlog is posted previously, same errors so no need to post another one.

That was my plan... one day I will learn how to do that. How hard can it be, I can rebuild a VG30DETT from the ground up, and the transmission attached to it and build a 500hp car. What is a few lines of code.

No clue how to do that.